@@deiedwa8913 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and Baruch. In the basis of the authority given by Christ to his Church, so that the Church would be guided by the holy spirit to define the Canon.
@@bernardo_gois If the authority of the holy roman catholic church is true then you are absolutely right. One thing I am realizing is I’ve always assumed sola scriptura, but don’t know how it can be defended. I am at a loss.
@@deiedwa8913 It’s ok. I’m a catholic so I would be biased in the discussion, but of course I think that sola scriptura is a very inconsistent doctrine. A solid recommendation for you would be “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
@@deiedwa8913 A quick correction would be the "Roman" part you mentioned. Although I believe the Pope has a supremacy comapred to the other bishops, not every Church with valid apostolic succession is roman. There are churches in the east in full communion with Rome while not adhering to the same rite and having rich and different histories, while being part of the Catholic Church
As soon as Dr. Chirico said he was raised Catholic but his family never attended Mass, I knew Trent had won. I feel like that is nearly every Catholic to Protestant Conversion story I’ve ever heard. And it drives me crazy because the same Protestants who claim that Catholicism is a dead faith with members who are asleep, fail to acknowledge that this is problem with every congregation struggles with. It’s not just a Catholic problem.
My family were devout and believing, and me especially so. I'm an evangelical Protestant today* I actually don't doubt that there is some truth in what you say about who converts, because those who are devout are either: A) Truly faithful, and thus inclined to look past faults and be loyal and love the neighbours they already have in the church. or B) Particularly self-deceived and wedded to dogma / particular theologies for the wrong reasons. * Reason follows. Skip if you don't want to read a criticism of Catholicism. Once I believed the gospel, I saw that the church is the body of all who have repented and believed in Jesus, and that many of the dogmas and anathemas were contrary to the gospel akin to the Galatian heresy in that they claim to separate people from Christ's body.
@SeanusAurelius You can see the church historically from Pentecost.On. There was nothing but the Catholic Church until Martin Luther committed his heresy And then we have thousands of protestant denominations each claiming They get the truth from scripture, yet each giving different truth. You rationalize to make yourself look correct but you miss out on all the graces you receive from the church jesus christ started.
I much prefer that conversational style over a debate. I think its much more fruitful, it allows for both parties to state their positions and how they arrived at them without someone having to "win" and be thinking of "tactics." The discussion moves organically so there's more freedom to explore different avenues that arise from the conversation. It also is more conducive to creating friendship between Catholics and Protestants which is always a good thing.
12:45 (ish) - "It is appropriate that we..." As a Protestant I eventually realized that I was holding Catholics to a standard which I did not hold myself to. Making logical conclusions from that which is not explicit in Scripture was allowed for me - but not for Catholics. Once I began to examine my Framework for evaluating Protestant/Catholic claims, I realized I was in trouble and just debunking the Catholic Church was not going to be as easy as I thought. [Edit: For those unfamiliar, when Catholics speak of Prayer to the Saints, or virtually anything about Mary - the use of "it is appropriate" or "it is fitting that..." the common Protestant response is to metaphorically stamp his foot and insist on an *explicit* direction from Scripture.]
We don't need any explicitly doctrines in the bible to determine doctrine, especially about saintly intercession. Simply put, all dead people are dead, no where in the bible is it indicated that there is post-death consciousness therefore the saints can't intercede
@MarkelMathurin as a former Catholic I know that saints.are very cultural to groups and can become icons. Italians praying to St. Christopher and Mexicans with the Lady of Guadalupe. I think people get sidetracked into cultural Christianity by praying to other and paying less attention to Christ.
Which is fair if you are going to make Mary as fundamental as the Romans have. You have to for example to believe in the Assumption. It is not just an agreement to disagree issue, for some Romans you are basically going to hell for not believing in essentially a piece of extra biblical folklore…
@@MarkelMathurin 1. Jesus said to the "good thief": “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) 2. Enoch is with God in Heaven (Gen 5 : 21-24) 3. Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2 : 11) 4. St. John's vision of Heaven shows a great number from many nations in Heaven. (see Revelation 5 and 7).
@@MarkelMathurin The dead of the old testament went to Gehenna or Sheol, Gehenna was the compartment of the damned, the Jews had no way of forgiving their sins, the temple sacrifice only reminded them of their sins, and this pleased God, heaven (this that is, total beatitude with God) was not open before Christ, that is why in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the condemned man and Lazarus were able to communicate and recognize each other, that was a real event in the world spiritual, and most importantly, before Christ. When you read in Ecclesiastes 9:5, saying that the dead know nothing, it means that you should not seek necromancy, communicate with the dead in search of knowledge, not that you cannot pray and honor them, you must remember this is adressing things Jews cant do, not that things they can and should do.
God chose to save us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus was born of Mary, but that statement is placing the emphasis on the wrong person.
@@AraceliSpeed How do you comprehend that fact that the Word chose to incarnate in her? It's Jesus that makes Mary His mother. Is that more acceptable to you? As you said: Jesus was born of Mary. Was she then just a vessel? You know how it went: Mary had to accept her motherhood; she wasn't forced. This makes her very special because she gave us God's flesh by her yes. Have you ever meditated on what it means for us Christians that Mary literally gave the Word His body, the very body that saved us? This is what she has done by God's grace. Some emphasis is not too much emphasis. A question for you, was the Ark on the covenant given too much emphasis in the OT? or the Temple? or anything in your eyes? See if there was anything in creation that was emphasised that might shock you in the OT. If you find nothing, even the temple or the Ark, there is no reason, in my opinion, that the woman who gave flesh to the Lord shouldn't be praised by following God's will.
@@AraceliSpeed I would advise you to simply read what we say about Mary. You'll find that any title of honour we give her comes from God's grace in her. All that she's got or is is from God's grace. Every time you venerate Mary, you worship God. Mind the two different verbs.
@@georgepierson4920 When you start to use salvation and Mary in the same sentence, it’s toeing the line too closely and that’s when you start to lose a lot of Protestants. I actually attend mass and am fully open to the truth so I wouldn’t say that non Catholics are always looking for an excuse to bash Mary. She played an important role, but to place her anywhere near salvation is inappropriate.
@Ben-hn4nw the Catholic Church says the Bible is true. Jesus founded His Church so we could have an authority. How do you know what God is thinking? How do you know your interpretation of scripture is infallible?
even they can't agree on what exactly sola scriptura even means at the end of the day. When the more analytical protestant break down Sola Scriptura-its basically a version of scripture plus a hermeneutic tradition as a backdrop; sounds like tradition to me.
@@camilomontoya7412 Sola Scriptura= Tradition, except the tradition of some random guy in the 16th century instead of the tradition of Jesus's Apostles.
As a Jew, not a Christian of course, Jesus would have believed the opposite and said so. Excepting the parables, most of his speeches quote directly from Scripture which would have been based exclusively in the Mosaic Law. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place." Matthew 5:17-18
@@justpodzol9681hey he’s not some random guy! He’s the random guy that shattered the church into a million pieces, show some respect, to our divine, anti semetic prophet 😡
@@Shnitzel_Affe Let's be fair, Luther was a raging anti-Semite following very closely to a thousand year old Catholic tradition of raging anti-Semitism. It's a position he probably most closely aligned to the Pope.
This was a great conversation. Not sure how Dr. Chirico came out of this without questioning his protestant beliefs. Well done, you were charitable and yet entirely devastating.
Pretty easy if he has a huge ego he will just delude himself into thinking Trent used shady debate tactics, when in reality he was really humble and asked straightforward questions
I think Mary has really helped me in understanding Christ and how I should respond to him. She’s definitely someone I look to when I am moving into not following what The Lord would want me to do. Also the name Dr. Leonardo De Chirico kinda made me giggle. For a second I thought the guy from the wolf on Wall Street became a Christian.
Oh my gosh-such a fabulous discussion! I learned so much listening to both sides (but I’m firmly in the Catholic camp), but the thing I learned most was how to have a calm and loving debate about these important topics. Thanks so much and God Bless these teachers.
A full blooded Italian that's renounced his Catholic faith and the faith of his fathers? That is truly tragic and is a sign of the corruption of the times.
Brother surely you can't mean that heritage is all binding. If an Arab Muslim converted to our side I certainly wouldn't condemn him for not listening to his heritage
@Bigboss192x Ahhh, but if you're a Catholic then "our side" is what you understand to be the correct faith. Is it not? So joining the correct faith then becomes laudible not lamentable, even if leaving the faith of the crib. In the case of the full blooded Italian man, his heritage *already had* the faith understood by Catholics as the true faith, the Catholic faith. Thus it becomes lamentable to see one who grew in a "home" from birth that taught the correct faith (i.e. the Italian's family/heritage) suddenly abandon it.
@clivejungle6999 You don't even know what the inquisition is. If it wouldn't be for the inquisition - what they really are, not the fantasies your cult leaders feed you - you all would've devolved to cannibalism, incest and going about nude on all fours baying at the moon.
Italians like that are a shame. We literally have archeological proof of catholic christians. I saw a few italian protesters “pastors” returning to the Church this year. Hallelujah!
Scripture is food for a Christian. Can you physically live without food? Neither can a saved person live without scripture. That’s a pretty clear teaching that sola Scriptura is the life of the church and nothing else is said to supply such a thing. These Mary doctrines are not food for the church that’s why they aren’t found in God’s word!!
@@ZWAYTOLIFE "No, it does not follow that because Scripture is necessary for spiritual life; ONLY Scripture is necessary for life. That's like saying because water is necessary for physical life, ONLY water is necessary for physical life. Scripture is metaphorical "food" for the soul, while Jesus' flesh and blood are TRUE food for the soul in a very literal sense. There is perhaps no clearer passage in all of Scripture than John chapter 6 when Jesus tells us that the bread he will give for the life of the world is his flesh. That is the very same flesh that was nailed to the cross on Calvary." -@bjoeym, a few minutes ago in reply to your copypasta under another comment
Dr. Chirico said near the beginning of the interview that one of his concerns is that Catholicism conflates the Church with Christ. I wonder if he is concerned that Christ said to Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" when referring to the persecution of the Church.
@@ji8044 Excuse me? GALATIANS 1:13 ESV - 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how *I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD VIOLENTLY AND TRIED TO DESTROY IT.* PHILIPPIANS 3:6 ESV - 6 as to zeal, *A PERSECUTOR OF THE CHURCH;* as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
@@ji8044 I'm not sure what you mean that there was no Church. Even while the majority of the followers of Jesus still considered themselves Jews (there were also early gentile converts) they still understood themselves to be members of the church, or gathering/assembly, that Jesus had established.
there is no explicit example in scripture in their view so they reject it jesus = the father = the holy spirit if you can pray to one you can pray to all, read clement II his sermen is shocking at how fluid he uses the trinity. he says at one point "they [the jews] put God to death" "the sun and moon ran in fear at god's death" I was rocked by that, I'd only ever heard jesus was point to death, jesus died and rose etc
Saying that you can only pray to the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus is a hot take. That sniffs of a basic heresy to me for the sake of maintaining a fundamentalist sola scriptura view. The heresy to me sounds like the other persons of the trinity are only accessible through Jesus serving the role of a middleman rather than each person of the trinity being an object of worship that points to each other person. Even in this limited view, how does he reconcile people praying to the Father before knowing Jesus?
@@MarkelMathurin You didn't answer the question he posed, though. Chucking out scripture like it's a golem that does the job for you without any further explanation doesn't bring the conversation forward.
Protestant will say, “Why pray to saints when you can pray directly to God?” and then pray for God the Son to intercede with God the Holy Spirit for them. Why not pray directly to the Holy Spirit?
16:00 1 Thessalonians 2:13 And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe. 18:11 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” -Saint Jerome Thank you and God bless you and your family, Trent Horn. Praying for you and everyone here in my daily Rosary. Merry Christmas!
Thank you, Trent. I followed you for a few years and praise God you’ve gotten even better as a Catholic apologist. Keep up the good work God bless you.
There has been an incredible wave of Christian unification since just the latter 20th century. I think technology is having a huge effect on people and the American Catholic Church is leading the way in modern evangelization. Protestantism exists, sure, but if any religion is on its last legs it’s them. When people apostasize, it’s usually from a so-called “fundamentalism” Christianity to a fundamentalist atheism as its shown to be the weakest under scrutiny, at the risk of sounding triumphant (indeed, I think it’s a net bad thing they apostasize and so it is little victory)
Protestantism only emerged by abusing newly developed methods of promulgating information, i.e., the printing press in the 16th century. The internet only makes it easier.
That is a significant problem Protestants have or seem to have. The problem is that because they often see prayer as worship and worship as prayer, they mix the words together and use them for the same purpose, which needs to be corrected. The early Christians did not see worship and prayer that way.
Saw the whole thing. Leonardo had nothing to say you can feel his spirit he's super anti-Catholic. He keep calling the catholic church an empire and and institution He's super Weird. Trent was on point and as usual. Leonardo didn't even pull up one Bible verse. He's not on Trents level. Trents batting 1000. Leonardo doesn't even deserve to be at the plate. Trent is wasting his time talking to Tito Jackson. Now if he's talking to Michael I could understand, but he's dealing with Tito. I won't even give him tito he's dealing with Rebbie Jackson.
The Catholic Church as it existed after Constantine has been most definitely an empire,. Only someone with no knowledge of history at all would deny it.
2 Thess 2:15 clearly tells Christians to hold to traditions taught by the Apostles outside of Scripture. You wouldn't even have the Bible without teachings and tradition outside of Scripture. The 1st Bible didn't fall down from heaven.
The hardest thing for protestants to defend is sola scriptura. It is neither explicit nor implicit. Many protestants derive competing doctrines from so-called implicit teachings. Jesus gave us a church, the church gave us sacred scriptures. It's not the other way around. It's unfortunate that many poorly catechized catholics fall into the false notion of the ultimate supremacy of the bible and the "legitimacy" of private interpretation. Although they avoid the term interpretation and instead call it the plain reading of the text. There are very few protestants who willingly acknowledge and remain intellectually consistent on this subject. As with this Roman protestant, he tends to focus on the example rather than the overarching theme of the query.
Sola Scriptura is very easy to defend because its true: Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399I think he’s trying to point out that sola scriptura is based on a false premise that God’s revelation was exclusively transmitted by scripture. You only need to study the question of “where does the Bible come from?” To conclude that placing the Bible as the sole infallible authority is a framework that’s difficult to defend. For example, one thing the Protestants concluded after the reformation was to remove parts of, indeed whole books of, the Bible that were considered scripture by all Christians to that point. Or that in Jesus’ time, the people of Israel had competing schools on what scripture included and didn’t include.
@ the greater authority is God who transmitted revelation to not only establishing and inspiring scripture but through the apostles he bequeathed authority to and sent on mission. It is the Church that received inspiration to write scripture and received revelation on what scripture is to be held as exclusive canon.
Scripture is food for a Christian. Can you physically live without food? Neither can a saved person live without scripture. That’s a pretty clear teaching that sola Scriptura is the life of the church and nothing else is said to supply such a thing.
Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399 Just curious, how do you square your statement "There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures" with John 21:25. If there are, according to John's Gospel, "many other things which Jesus (God the Son) did;.." that were not written down, how could Scripture have greater authority than God himself, either Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit? If God the Son (or even the Father or the holy Spirit) did and said things that aren't found in Scripture, who holds the greater authority, the Triune God or Scripture?
Scripture is food for a Christian. Can you physically live without food? Neither can a saved person live without scripture. That’s a pretty clear teaching that sola Scriptura is the life of the church and nothing else is said to supply such a thing.
There is nothing sadder to me than a Protestant Italian. I visited the village where my grandparents were born in Campania which had suffered a devastating earthquake in the 1980's and apparently that incident so shook their faith in God that many became Jehovah's Witnesses. In Italy, you're surrounded by Catholic iconography everywhere. To deny all that history is just tragic to me.
It's kind of similar to the situation in Russia. Although the majority of Russians are baptized Orthodox, actual Sunday church attendance in the ROC is pitiful and the baptists gained a very strong foothold in Russia because their underground churches did well under the communist regime. So if you actually meet a Russian who is a practicing Christian today, not just baptised as a baby, they're more likely to be baptist than they are Orthodox (or Catholic). We have a huge Russian population in the state where I live and they're nearly all baptist or some version of non demoninational protestant. We have essentially no ethnic Russians who practice apostolic Christianity.
I’d love for you to make a video on Mother Theresa given how much her name has been dragged through the mud, like in the Buzzfeed video or on what Hitchens wrote
All I know is when about 8 or 9 I bought a statue of 'Our lady of Monserrat' at a jumble sale, not that I knew that i knew who at the time and I'm not saying this is the only reason for my conversion but it played it's part.
If you accept the 27 books of the New Testament, then you’ve already acknowledged/accepted sacred tradition and authority of the Catholic Church in canonizing/interpreting scripture.
That's not actually true of course, for instance the Catholic stance on the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in any of those books. There is literally nothing to interpret.
The Catholic church was not a thing when those books were recognized as scripture...it was just the church. The Roman Catholics decided to become their own thing a few centuries later
@@ji8044 It’s actually very true. You’re limiting yourself to what you personally interpret to only be explicitly stated in scripture, yet the Catholic Church teaches sacred tradition alongside sacred scripture. If you only believe biblical scripture to be historical fact, then you are selling yourself short of the fullness of the Christian faith. Even Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
@@ji8044: The Catholic (NOT Roman Catholic) Church was established in Jerusalem in the year 33AD. The Council at Nicea was a meeting of Catholic bishops. No religion was established there. There is no church called the 'Roman Catholic Church'. Historical fact!
@nicbentulan Because they both think they are smart and know everything about heaven AND hell/want to be greater than God, who created them. And don't listen to God, still commanding them: 'You shall not eat from this one tree!'. So they are trapped in the devil's question: 'Did God REALLY say?' So they HAVE to discuss for eternity!
The moderator’s claim that Protestants have a “high view of scripture” contradicts the very meaning of “sola”. Catholics have a high view of scripture, but they understand the Jesus left us a Church not a bible. What Protestants know of today as “scripture” is a gift from the Church.
Arius denied the title of God bearer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The New Testament says pray for one another. The idea that we cannot ask those in heaven to pray for us denies the Communion of the Saints. Sola Scriptura is a misleading phrase because Protestants actually believe in each individual interpretation of Holy Scripture. The interpretation srarts first and the Scriptures are used selectively to back up protest. To further do this books are remove that contradict the Protestant ideas. The other issue us the Early Church writers who were taught by the apostles do not agree with the protest. Yes what the apostles did was teach in many ways not just the Scriptures which the Church blessed preserved and used as part of the tradition.
@@patrickpelletier9298 where does it say those in heaven can hear you? Again if your gonna pray, pray directly to God, why would you pray to anyone else. And if you're gonna ask anyone to intercede for you, why wouldn't you ask Christ?
@ where does it say they can’t? The burden of proof is on YOU, not me. Revelation shows the elders in heaven bringing the prayers of the holy ones on earth to God.
Not only is Sola Scriptura found nowhere in the Bible (either explicitly or implicitly), but it is *explicitly* stated that not all of Jesus's teachings are included within the words of the Bible, or at least the Gospels (John 21:25)
@@justpodzol9681 Fair enough, you are correct that we can't have a discussion because you have your own set of facts. By way of example we celebrate Christmas based on tradition alone because there is no authoritative reason to believe that Jesus was born on December 25th or that early Christians EVER celebrated his birth.
@1:30 This is a subtle but important facet of the doctrine. The New Testament refers to us as children or sons of God nearly two dozen times, while creature often refers to creations that are not Gods literal children. It's similar to using clump of cells instead of baby. It's not wrong, but it's misleading and supports a more blue haired doctrinal narrative.
I always pray that I become a successful Catholic Social Media Influencer to spread the teachings and Revelations of the Catholic Church and the entire Christendom. I hope and pray the Devotion to the Eucharist and the Holy Souls in Purgatory helps me. In your charity, lets all pray 7 Hail Mary for the propagation of all Catholic Teachings and for the success of all Catholic Social Media Influencer that all may be guided by the Holy Trinity, Holy Family, all Great Saints, and Angels.
Christ gave a prayer that was directed to the Father and told us to pray it/in that manner. The idea that we can only pray to Christ is contradictory to praying “Our Father”
Love seeing Protestant intellectuals trip up on Sola Scriptura not proving itself. Once one's eyes and heart are opened to the true Church, there's no going back!
Protestants are indeed Christian, I love my protestant friends deeply. Protestant teachings is like reading a novel with a few chapters missing. Or watching your favorite movie on tv but a few scenes cut out.
@@MarkelMathurin I'm not a Catholic or protestant, but I'm a little confused by this take. Wasn't it Luther that removed the deuterocanon? I hear protestants talk a lot about not adding or taking away from the Bible, but it seems that redraws the boundaries of what the Bible is. Am I missing something?
yup the question of the Cannon is very very comlicated. Many different strains of 0year jews held very different cannons. The dead sea jews held book of enoch as cannon for example. I think the sumarians only held the 5 books of moses
@@IJN-33 Yes. The Deuterocanon was always disputed. Among the Jews, in the early church, most notably by Jerome, and onwards. At Trent, the vote for retaining it was quite close (the yes vote was not even a majority, only a plurality). Luther sided with Jerome and the critics. Contrary to internet Catholic opinion, he didn't remove it, and in fact it was printed in all Lutheran Bibles, albeit in a section between the Old and the New Testaments.
No offense to the “Protestant” but the phrase “Protestant” is broad and vague enough to mean nothing. What identifies his “Protestant” any more than he is the self professed leader of some church assembly he built in some vacant building in Rome?
@@ji8044: Well, 'catholic' can mean universal, but it originally means 'concerning the whole, complete'. For almost two thousand years, since at least 107AD, it has also been the name used by the original followers of Our Lord, and the Church that He established. When I tell someone that I'm Catholic they know that I'm referring to my religion, they don't expect to see me flying all around the globe! P.S. There is no church called the 'Roman Catholic Church'. The name is CATHOLIC.
It always comes back to the same basic proposition: "If I don't find it in the Bible then it should not be believed." Regarding 'praying to the saints' the difficulty is probably a matter of language. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prayer is “the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God”. So, going by that definition, we cannot pray to the Saints. It would be better to use another term. We talk to the saints in Heaven. We make requests to the saints in Heaven. These are all ultimately directed towards God. And if we should only pray to God then we should not ask other people on this earth to pray on our behalf. If you accept that it is permissible to ask another person on earth to pray for you then you should have no difficulty asking the saints in Heaven to pray for you.
2:06 I have read the Ignatius Catholic study Bible and have found this quote by St Jerome: God in showing his perfect salvation uses the same things that caused sin to enter the world: a tree, a fruit and a Virgin.
Mary achieved Theosis in a remarkable and unrepeatable way. If she did not give herself totally and freely, in other words, if she did not say YES, the incarnation was not possible. This female is the most important only human person that has ever existed. She is the most holy and important, necessary after the Trinity.
@@jc319ad Jesus says he is inferior to the Father on multiple occasions. Paul does the same. Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation taking place as it does after Jesus was already dead.
@@jc319ad Notice Jesus himself isn't in that. Jesus always and everywhere said he was separate and inferior from God the Father. Paul agrees and says God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. You can't make it any plainer than that. The first formal dogmatic theology of the Trinity is by Augustine in "On The Trinity" 400 years after the birth of Jesus. It comes possibly from his background as a Manichean. Their concept of the universe involved multiple forces co-existing and interacting as do most pagan religions. That is completely absent from Judaism in the OT, however later Judaism was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a degree. We see that for instance in the heavy amount of Platonism in the NT.
Sir, with all due respect, you are not really doing good to the souls of your fans here. Why do you spend your whole time, energy and ministry indoctrinating people in perpetual bondage. As an Ex-Catholic just last two months, I was so zealous defending the falsehood and deceptions practiced in Catholic system. Indeed, they have nice teachings, but they carefully blend them with their fabrication to subvert the place of Christ.
I’ve read the Bible. And I’ll say that accumulative we can see that people who are a part of the body of Christ, and who are in heaven, clearly know what we are doing here on this side of the veil. They are cheering for us, they are rejoicing when we repent, they are offering up prayers to God. They are IN Christ, fully in Christ. If we here on earth can gain some of Christ so that we can speak other languages, heal people, have knowledge we shouldn’t have, etc, then how much more will those who are perfected have these gifts? And we should all intercede for each other according to the Bible. Does God’s commandments stop being commandments when we enter into his presence? That doesn’t make any sense. Those in heaven can pray for us. Because they are in heaven.
Trent with the motte and bailey: "It’s like asking a friend to pray for you" - the Motte “Hey quasi-incarnate transubstantiated Eternal Queen of Heaven, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Wife of the Spirit, into your Hands I commit my spirit!!!" - The Bailey
I think the motte and Bailey is inaccurate because this can be applied to one’s relationship with Jesus too, where you can have a personal, intimate and even friendship with Jesus is not only a fundamental concept of Christianity, but also being in awe akin to royalty that Jesus sits in (which follows Mary as Queen Mother like in ancient Israel, a revered member of the royal family) The motte and bailey is where you present one position that contradicts your actual belief. It’s a tactic of hiding your beliefs which is not what happens when our relationship with the divine or saints are explained in terms of royalty or as friends as if those were contradictory concepts.
@@undolf4097 no, a motte and bailey is basically a bait and switch. You switch between something that is difficult to defend to something that is much easier to defend that most people already agree with. We all agree that there is nothing wrong with asking your friends to pray for you. This is easy to defend (the motte) But thats not what is at issue. The issue is when you treat Mary as if she were a demi-god and your "prayers" to her end up looking like prayers to God Himself. That is much more difficult to defend (the bailey). And Trent presents the Catholic view as if it were the motte when it reality its the bailey. Hence the bait and switch.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 like i explained, this are reconcilable when we make the comparison to our relationship to Jesus and there’s not a reason to have an issue with it Historical Protestant objections to Saint intercession have everything to do with Calvinist and Lutheran teachings on sanctification (that is, the mechanism of grace and salvation) and you’ll find both historical schools do not object to such a representation of Jesus or Mary in royal terms You can strengthen your Protestant view by not embracing a fallacious interpretation, so I’m not even saying you need to become catholic to accept these positions as historical Protestantism did not
I'm sorry to say I was not impressed with De Chirrico at all. I was hoping for a higher caliber protestant... but all he offered were the same tired talking points.
Trent, at around 11minutes or so, this gentleman states that the bible must be the safeguard and upholder of truth. I think there was a missed opportunity there to begin to unravel his belief in sola scriptura as the bible itself states that the Church, not the bible, is the safeguard and upholder of truth. 1tim 3:15. God bless you, Trent. Keep up the Lord's work.
10:04 - "Dr. Chirico:...we are not supposed to pray to them..." where is that in the bible? we should hold Protestants strictly to sola scriptura and 66 canon bible. Where in the 66 books is this? Also, please don't confuse this with what King Saul did. Ok, Trend nailed it on the head at 11:46
''Can the Church say something contrary to the Bible?'' This is the right question and the one that proves Sola Scriptura, i.e. ONLY CHRIST, ONLY GRACE, ONLY BY THE GIFT OF FAITH. Rome teaches synergy which is opposite to the Bible as Lutheran Reformation clearly and adamantly proved. So, how a church can insist of her infallibility, when teaches the opposite of the Bible? The Word of God is in the centre, not what a church thinks for herself. In fact Rome says ''Not Sola Scriptura'', but ''ONLY ROME''. This is anti-christ mentality. Unfortunately, most of Protestantism today teaches the same with Rome. Come back to the true church, the one clearly taught in the lutheran confessions. Απάντηση
" Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church.... Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith." CCC 2003, 2005. The Catholic Church has all it's official teachings online and for free. You have no excuse to not believe but to spread falsehoods about Her. I think the biggest mistake is believing that Luther was consistent in his views, and didn't constantly flip flop, to the point of altering the very Bible itself to suit his views.
@@Cklert I know perfectly the Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church. I know of what I speak about. But, this is not your case. I think you know nothing about lutheran theology. Rome is synergistic. It starts with grace and continues with the response of man. Everything is based on man's free will and deeds. Study more.
When I began listening to Muslims debate, I noticed that they made very similar points as Protestant Christians. They treat the Quran very similar to how modern Christians use sola scriptura. Almost all mimicked the main doctrine points, but when questioned deeper, their ideology becomes relative to their own interpretation. I do think Christianity obviously has a stronger position in regards to history, but ultimately their faith hinges on what they feel is true based on their preferences. Although I do think the Bible can point people to Christ, I do not think the Bible can tell a person why the Bible alone should be trusted. I've seen many people corrupt scripture in order to justify evil. With that being said, what is the best way to prevent Bible corruption? Is it the interpretation that doesnt offend people? Is it the interpretation that tolerates sin? Is it the interpretation that opens it all up to interpretation. If we are being honest, it only makes sense if we trust God and his Church to arrange the canon as it should and to teach and pass down traditions that keep order in the Church. If people cant trust the Church then how can they trust scriptures. I seriously dont know how any honest person can justify this.
@ji8044 There is only one church. Do you know why the saints decided that information regarding the 12 tribes was relevant when deciding what is canon?
@@SINQUEFIELD83 Jesus said it himself in Matthew. I knew that you have never read the bible. Most Catholics have not. “Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?” 28Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" Matthew 19:26-27
As a Catholic l believe that God speaks to us with one voice, but through two channels. Through the written word of God AND through His Church which He established upon Peter and the apostles. Therefore, God cannot contradict Himself by saying one thing in the Bible and saying something contradictory through His Church. The fulness of revelation requires both. Our protestant brothers and sisters are missing out big time. Eg, the Eucharist, Sacraments, Mary and the saints, the Mass and so much more. Vivo Christo Rey.
@@MarkelMathurinTruly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. - John 6:47-50
I respect your giftedness and I learn from you a lot. How do you respond to the challenge that in order to avoid Sola Scriptura Catholics might end up with "the pope alone" principle (the logical conclusion). If the pope is not bound by sufficiently basing doctrines in the Scriptures (and/or by necessary inference), then whatever the pope decides, it will be OK (even if thinly based on tradition, after all tradition is a big and mixed bag, any obscure practice may be used as prooftext) ? If some or many object they easily can get excommunicated (Orthodox bishops patriarchs as a case study). The problem is not necessarily in different systems but in the human sinfulness and absolute power. The second challenge: if the Church is the pillar and buttress of the truth , then the whole worldwide Church (ecumenical council near unanimous decisions) has the infallibility, not one person/pope.
1. Papal Authority: The pope is not “free to do whatever he wants.” His authority is exercised in communion with the Church’s Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. Papal infallibility is narrowly defined and applies only in specific circumstances regarding faith and morals. 2. Infallibility of the Church vs. the Pope: While the Church as a whole is the pillar and foundation of truth, the pope holds a unique role in safeguarding the faith and confirming the teachings of the Church, including those of ecumenical councils. The Church’s authority is exercised collectively, but the pope is the ultimate guarantor of the Church's doctrinal fidelity. 3. Theological Safeguards: Catholicism includes mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power, such as collegiality, synods, and a well-defined structure of accountability. The pope is not acting alone, and any potential for human sinfulness is mitigated by the broader context of Church governance.
@Roman_Leo3 1. how this authority played out in history? why RC apologists have hard time finding strong proofs for some of the RC dogmas that were supposedly done "in communion with the Church's Tradition" (for example, who wrote Septum Presidium? so any obscure right or wrong fragment that describes a practice in the tradition works even if the practice is not backed by the majority of the major early Church Fathers)? How is that cosidered communion with the Church's Tradition? Its sounds nice on paper until some investigation is done about the claims. "in communion with the magisterium", unless half of the magisterium got excommunicated along ethnic national lines so that their voice is not represented. 2. If 1 person is the "ultimate guarantor" of the faith and "confirms the teachings of the ecumenical councils", then you proved my point, "the Pope alone" principle is replacing "the Church alone" as the pillar of faith. If the pope errs who corrects the Pope? no RC friend was able to respond to this question. I see the Conciliar principle more consistent (where the majority of the RC magisterium, to start with, can correct the pope). 3. The mechanisms of theological safeguards are not working it seems. jumping from 7 to 21 "ecumenical" councils even when half of the Church was not invited. So much for "ecumenism" and so much for the "Church is the pillar of the Truth". Probably better to say "half of the Church is the pillar of the Truth".
1. how this authority played out in history? why RC apologists have hard time finding strong proofs for some of the RC dogmas that were supposedly done "in communion with the Church's Tradition" (for example, who wrote Septum Presidium? so any obscure right or wrong fragment that describes a practice in the tradition works even if the practice is not backed by the majority of the major early Church Fathers)? How is that considered communion with the Church's Tradition? Its sounds nice on paper until some investigation is done about the claims. "in communion with the magisterium", unless half of the magisterium got excommunicated along ethnic national lines so that their voice is not represented. 2. If 1 person is the "ultimate guarantor" of the faith and "confirms the teachings of the ecumenical councils", then you proved my 1, "the Pope alone" principle is replacing "the Church alone" as the pillar of faith. If the pope errs who corrects the Pope? no RC friend was able to respond to this question. I see the Conciliar principle more consistent (where the majority of the RC magisterium to start with, can correct the pope). 3. The mechanisms of theological safeguards are not working it seems. jumping from 7 to 21 "ecumenical" councils even when half of the Church is not invited. So much for ecumenism and so much for the "Church is the pillar of the Truth". Probably better to say "half of the Church is the pillar of the Truth".
The important piont is whether praying to mary is part of the apostolic deposit or not If the bible does not teach the practice and if the early church fathers who either knew the apostles or knew those who knew the apostles did not teach it ...then it can be safe to say it is not part of the apostolic deposit of faith whether wriiten or oral
6:14 This is absurd. The Bible itself is founded on the Church. The New Testament from which he certainly must chiefly draw to make his points are the product of the Church, by the Holy Spirit. The books did not fall out of the middle of the air. He is making a false distinction between the decisions of the Church and the text of the Bible (aka "New Testament" chiefly).
I think an atheist might say that the fine tuning argument does not prove the existence of God because the fact that something has a low probability of happening naturally, ie the fine tuning of the universe, that doesn’t mean that it simply happened naturally by beating the odds. The cosmological argument is very convincing imo (keep in mind that I am Catholic and not atheist) but I have heard atheists say that perhaps the universe is eternal. Then you have to go to the trouble of showing that an infinite past is unreasonable.
Dr Chirico literally begged the question that sola scriptura is true in his entire argument. His arguments only worked if one assumes his premises were correct. Trent caught that well in his response and I honestly don’t think Dr Chirico had any kind of coherent response to that challenge.
When he says “grounded biblically”; oneness Pentecostals would say the orthodox understanding of the Trinity is unbiblical and that biblical trinitarianism is one of Modalism. And that’s an argument that is impossible to settle using the Bible alone.
Well it's an issue of authority. It's impossible not only to settle the Trinity argument but to settle any argument without a living authority. The Bible can't speak for itself.
On behalf of almost every Trinitarian Protestant, and tbh most Catholics, no way. The Bible absolutely is Trinitarian from beginning to end, starting from the first use of Elohim (a plural name), through to the Alpha and Omega in Revelation.
Happy December 2nd day of Advent, Trent! Been praying to our Lord Jesus for the world, through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima every day in my Rosary. I follow the first commandment so I only worship one God! I believe Jesus Christ is the mediator, and I believe our Blessed Mother Mary can lead us to Him. She prays for us on our way to Him. When I refer to Mary as my mother, please know I am not taking away respect due to my one and only God, Lord Jesus Christ. I believe loving people Jesus loves helps us love Him more, so the more I love Mary, the more I love God, and Jesus gave Mary to us as our mother on the Cross. John 19: 26-27 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. Mother Mary, the first Christian with her choice to say "yes" to my one and only God's will, I believe she is the number 1 model for sainthood for both men and women. She did God's will perfectly in every respect from the moment of her conception, listening to every single one of His commands. Her choice to say "yes" Luke 1:38 Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. to God's will ushered in salvation for the world, and she did so knowing the sacrifices and sufferings that would result from her decision, but, humbly, accepted the privilege of containing the God of the Universe her womb, and then becoming Jesus' most intimate friend, companion, and greatest consolation while on Earth. She was the devil's ultimate humiliation! I believe God is the King of the universe, having all power of the universe, but God chose Our Lady, a humble lowly woman the privilege of crushing the head of the devil. Mary is not God, but she is a saint, and being that she is with Jesus in Heaven, I ask for her intercession to our Lord (and for sake of brevity, I'll say I "pray to Mary"), similar to how I'd ask people to pray for me (please do. I'm a broken sinner in need of many prayers), but I trust she is a saint in Heaven so I believe it is helpful to ask for her help, especially being so close to her Son. There is only one God. He is the source of all good. He is Goodness. He is Love! "To love is to will the good of another." -St. Thomas Aquinas 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. 1 John 4:16 We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. Prayed for you Trent, your family, and everyone here at Mass yesterday and in my daily Rosary. Hope you and yours have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week!
Can’t believe you had a discussion with the actor from Titanic. My patreon dollars are helping this channel in ways I never thought possible ✝️
😂
? What was he in Titanic?
@KillerofGods Leonardo De Chirico sounds like Leonardo DiCaprio
@ think his name was Jack
@@w4in Ah, I didn't catch his name in the introduction. So I didn't get the joke.
“Praying to the dead is not in the Bible!”
Umm yall deleted the books.
Which books and on what basis should they be a part of the Bible canon?
@@deiedwa8913 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and Baruch. In the basis of the authority given by Christ to his Church, so that the Church would be guided by the holy spirit to define the Canon.
@@bernardo_gois If the authority of the holy roman catholic church is true then you are absolutely right. One thing I am realizing is I’ve always assumed sola scriptura, but don’t know how it can be defended. I am at a loss.
@@deiedwa8913 It’s ok. I’m a catholic so I would be biased in the discussion, but of course I think that sola scriptura is a very inconsistent doctrine. A solid recommendation for you would be “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
@@deiedwa8913 A quick correction would be the "Roman" part you mentioned. Although I believe the Pope has a supremacy comapred to the other bishops, not every Church with valid apostolic succession is roman. There are churches in the east in full communion with Rome while not adhering to the same rite and having rich and different histories, while being part of the Catholic Church
Wake up babe new council of Trent video
Same 😂
Ahahahahahah
CounSEL 😉
🙏
Trent won this debate at 14:25. The 60 seconds that followed is what a defeated Protestant sounds like in a debate. Really great work by Trent Horn.
Dude was bamboozled so hard
Wow that's where the new train stopped!
gotta love the "all scripture is useful for teaching" = scripture is the only source of the deposit of faith fallacy that followed
bro when they panned to all 3 cameras i was fkng dying laughing 😹 their faces r like yea ok buddy
@@fonsouribe LOL I had the exact same reaction. Dude on the left starting praying to Mary in his mind to make this guy stop talking at 15:12 😂
As soon as Dr. Chirico said he was raised Catholic but his family never attended Mass, I knew Trent had won.
I feel like that is nearly every Catholic to Protestant Conversion story I’ve ever heard. And it drives me crazy because the same Protestants who claim that Catholicism is a dead faith with members who are asleep, fail to acknowledge that this is problem with every congregation struggles with. It’s not just a Catholic problem.
My family were devout and believing, and me especially so. I'm an evangelical Protestant today*
I actually don't doubt that there is some truth in what you say about who converts, because those who are devout are either:
A) Truly faithful, and thus inclined to look past faults and be loyal and love the neighbours they already have in the church.
or
B) Particularly self-deceived and wedded to dogma / particular theologies for the wrong reasons.
* Reason follows. Skip if you don't want to read a criticism of Catholicism.
Once I believed the gospel, I saw that the church is the body of all who have repented and believed in Jesus, and that many of the dogmas and anathemas were contrary to the gospel akin to the Galatian heresy in that they claim to separate people from Christ's body.
Totally agree. I have never, EVER encountered an "I grew up Catholic" Protestant who was well formed in their faith to begin with. Not a single one.
@SeanusAurelius You can see the church historically from Pentecost.On. There was nothing but the Catholic Church until Martin Luther committed his heresy And then we have thousands of protestant denominations each claiming They get the truth from scripture, yet each giving different truth. You rationalize to make yourself look correct but you miss out on all the graces you receive from the church jesus christ started.
The saying I always hear. “Bad Catholics become Protestant. Good Protestants become Catholic.”
How can you be raised Catholic and never attend Mass? The two are in conflict.
It didn't feel like a debate. It was a great conversation. You can tell the difference between debate experience.
I much prefer that conversational style over a debate. I think its much more fruitful, it allows for both parties to state their positions and how they arrived at them without someone having to "win" and be thinking of "tactics." The discussion moves organically so there's more freedom to explore different avenues that arise from the conversation.
It also is more conducive to creating friendship between Catholics and Protestants which is always a good thing.
A debate can be conversational, they do not have to be bombastic.
12:45 (ish) - "It is appropriate that we..."
As a Protestant I eventually realized that I was holding Catholics to a standard which I did not hold myself to. Making logical conclusions from that which is not explicit in Scripture was allowed for me - but not for Catholics.
Once I began to examine my Framework for evaluating Protestant/Catholic claims, I realized I was in trouble and just debunking the Catholic Church was not going to be as easy as I thought.
[Edit: For those unfamiliar, when Catholics speak of Prayer to the Saints, or virtually anything about Mary - the use of "it is appropriate" or "it is fitting that..." the common Protestant response is to metaphorically stamp his foot and insist on an *explicit* direction from Scripture.]
We don't need any explicitly doctrines in the bible to determine doctrine, especially about saintly intercession. Simply put, all dead people are dead, no where in the bible is it indicated that there is post-death consciousness therefore the saints can't intercede
@MarkelMathurin as a former Catholic I know that saints.are very cultural to groups and can become icons. Italians praying to St. Christopher and Mexicans with the Lady of Guadalupe. I think people get sidetracked into cultural Christianity by praying to other and paying less attention to Christ.
Which is fair if you are going to make Mary as fundamental as the Romans have.
You have to for example to believe in the Assumption. It is not just an agreement to disagree issue, for some Romans you are basically going to hell for not believing in essentially a piece of extra biblical folklore…
@@MarkelMathurin 1. Jesus said to the "good thief": “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
2. Enoch is with God in Heaven (Gen 5 : 21-24)
3. Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2 : 11)
4. St. John's vision of Heaven shows a great number from many nations in Heaven. (see Revelation 5 and 7).
@@MarkelMathurin The dead of the old testament went to Gehenna or Sheol, Gehenna was the compartment of the damned, the Jews had no way of forgiving their sins, the temple sacrifice only reminded them of their sins, and this pleased God, heaven (this that is, total beatitude with God) was not open before Christ, that is why in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the condemned man and Lazarus were able to communicate and recognize each other, that was a real event in the world spiritual, and most importantly, before Christ.
When you read in Ecclesiastes 9:5, saying that the dead know nothing, it means that you should not seek necromancy, communicate with the dead in search of knowledge, not that you cannot pray and honor them, you must remember this is adressing things Jews cant do, not that things they can and should do.
Our Bishop said yesterday that loving Mary and turning to her is to respect the way God chose to save us.
God chose to save us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus was born of Mary, but that statement is placing the emphasis on the wrong person.
@@AraceliSpeedYou Protestants just look for any excuse to say anything against Jesus' mother.
@@AraceliSpeed How do you comprehend that fact that the Word chose to incarnate in her? It's Jesus that makes Mary His mother. Is that more acceptable to you? As you said: Jesus was born of Mary. Was she then just a vessel? You know how it went: Mary had to accept her motherhood; she wasn't forced. This makes her very special because she gave us God's flesh by her yes. Have you ever meditated on what it means for us Christians that Mary literally gave the Word His body, the very body that saved us? This is what she has done by God's grace. Some emphasis is not too much emphasis. A question for you, was the Ark on the covenant given too much emphasis in the OT? or the Temple? or anything in your eyes? See if there was anything in creation that was emphasised that might shock you in the OT. If you find nothing, even the temple or the Ark, there is no reason, in my opinion, that the woman who gave flesh to the Lord shouldn't be praised by following God's will.
@@AraceliSpeed I would advise you to simply read what we say about Mary. You'll find that any title of honour we give her comes from God's grace in her. All that she's got or is is from God's grace. Every time you venerate Mary, you worship God. Mind the two different verbs.
@@georgepierson4920 When you start to use salvation and Mary in the same sentence, it’s toeing the line too closely and that’s when you start to lose a lot of Protestants. I actually attend mass and am fully open to the truth so I wouldn’t say that non Catholics are always looking for an excuse to bash Mary. She played an important role, but to place her anywhere near salvation is inappropriate.
The protestant is still arguing by quoting scripture, not recognizing the authority behind the scriptures. Great job, Trent!
God is the authority behind the scriptures...not the church or the magesterium or whatever
@Ben-hn4nw God set up the Church so we could have an authority. How do you know what God thinks? Who made you infallible?
@@jackieo8693the Church is still run by fallible men, though. That’s the problem.
@Ben-hn4nw the Catholic Church says the Bible is true. Jesus founded His Church so we could have an authority. How do you know what God is thinking? How do you know your interpretation of scripture is infallible?
@@Ben-hn4nwgo to 17:48 onwards, it must have skipped on your media player
This is why I have stopped debating Protestants ... they are not able to see that SS is just not taught in scripture
even they can't agree on what exactly sola scriptura even means at the end of the day. When the more analytical protestant break down Sola Scriptura-its basically a version of scripture plus a hermeneutic tradition as a backdrop; sounds like tradition to me.
@@camilomontoya7412 Sola Scriptura= Tradition, except the tradition of some random guy in the 16th century instead of the tradition of Jesus's Apostles.
As a Jew, not a Christian of course, Jesus would have believed the opposite and said so.
Excepting the parables, most of his speeches quote directly from Scripture which would have been based exclusively in the Mosaic Law.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place." Matthew 5:17-18
@@justpodzol9681hey he’s not some random guy! He’s the random guy that shattered the church into a million pieces, show some respect, to our divine, anti semetic prophet 😡
@@Shnitzel_Affe Let's be fair, Luther was a raging anti-Semite following very closely to a thousand year old Catholic tradition of raging anti-Semitism. It's a position he probably most closely aligned to the Pope.
This was a great conversation. Not sure how Dr. Chirico came out of this without questioning his protestant beliefs. Well done, you were charitable and yet entirely devastating.
Pretty easy if he has a huge ego he will just delude himself into thinking Trent used shady debate tactics, when in reality he was really humble and asked straightforward questions
I think Mary has really helped me in understanding Christ and how I should respond to him. She’s definitely someone I look to when I am moving into not following what The Lord would want me to do. Also the name Dr. Leonardo De Chirico kinda made me giggle. For a second I thought the guy from the wolf on Wall Street became a Christian.
You overexalt Mary. That's a result of human arrogance
Oh my gosh-such a fabulous discussion!
I learned so much listening to both sides (but I’m firmly in the Catholic camp), but the thing I learned most was how to have a calm and loving debate about these important topics.
Thanks so much and God Bless these teachers.
I respect the Dr. for doing a discussion in a second language! Something I certainly couldn't do!
Too bad his theology isn’t as good as his English.
A full blooded Italian that's renounced his Catholic faith and the faith of his fathers? That is truly tragic and is a sign of the corruption of the times.
Brother surely you can't mean that heritage is all binding. If an Arab Muslim converted to our side I certainly wouldn't condemn him for not listening to his heritage
@Bigboss192x Ahhh, but if you're a Catholic then "our side" is what you understand to be the correct faith. Is it not? So joining the correct faith then becomes laudible not lamentable, even if leaving the faith of the crib. In the case of the full blooded Italian man, his heritage *already had* the faith understood by Catholics as the true faith, the Catholic faith. Thus it becomes lamentable to see one who grew in a "home" from birth that taught the correct faith (i.e. the Italian's family/heritage) suddenly abandon it.
Well, no more Inquisition around and Easter in Piedmont is lot less brutal these days…
@clivejungle6999 You don't even know what the inquisition is. If it wouldn't be for the inquisition - what they really are, not the fantasies your cult leaders feed you - you all would've devolved to cannibalism, incest and going about nude on all fours baying at the moon.
@@clivejungle6999Protestant troll no better than Muslim and Orthodox trolls
I watched it yesterday and you absolutely schooled him. Well done Trent God Bless
Italians like that are a shame. We literally have archeological proof of catholic christians. I saw a few italian protesters “pastors” returning to the Church this year. Hallelujah!
Trent horn is such an intelligent man. Watching Trent debate makes me proud to be Catholic ❤️🔥
Scripture is food for a Christian. Can you physically live without food? Neither can a saved person live without scripture. That’s a pretty clear teaching that sola Scriptura is the life of the church and nothing else is said to supply such a thing. These Mary doctrines are not food for the church that’s why they aren’t found in God’s word!!
@@ZWAYTOLIFE "No, it does not follow that because Scripture is necessary for spiritual life; ONLY Scripture is necessary for life. That's like saying because water is necessary for physical life, ONLY water is necessary for physical life. Scripture is metaphorical "food" for the soul, while Jesus' flesh and blood are TRUE food for the soul in a very literal sense. There is perhaps no clearer passage in all of Scripture than John chapter 6 when Jesus tells us that the bread he will give for the life of the world is his flesh. That is the very same flesh that was nailed to the cross on Calvary."
-@bjoeym, a few minutes ago in reply to your copypasta under another comment
@ water is necessary for life. You cannot live but a few days without water. That’s why water is metaphor for His Spirit.
@@ZWAYTOLIFE the trinity isn’t found explicitly stated in the text though it is central doctrine.
@ Trinity means 3. We find Father Son N Spirit taught clearly unlike many of the RCC doctrines that can’t be found.
Dr. Chirico said near the beginning of the interview that one of his concerns is that Catholicism conflates the Church with Christ. I wonder if he is concerned that Christ said to Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" when referring to the persecution of the Church.
Great point
He forgot that the Church is the body of Christ. This is why we call Him the Bridegroom, we as members of the Church are made one flesh with Christ.
Paul didn't persecute the church because there was no church. All the followers of Jesus would have been considered Jews.
@@ji8044 Excuse me?
GALATIANS 1:13 ESV - 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how *I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD VIOLENTLY AND TRIED TO DESTROY IT.*
PHILIPPIANS 3:6 ESV - 6 as to zeal, *A PERSECUTOR OF THE CHURCH;* as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
@@ji8044 I'm not sure what you mean that there was no Church. Even while the majority of the followers of Jesus still considered themselves Jews (there were also early gentile converts) they still understood themselves to be members of the church, or gathering/assembly, that Jesus had established.
The Dr. says you can't pray to the Holy Spirit 11:01.😳🥴 That's a bold claim.
That's what I was taught as a Baptist. You can pray only to the Father, not to Jesus and not to the Holy Spirit.
Just another example of Protestant logic being nonsensical.
😮@@SethEdwards-hq9pm
there is no explicit example in scripture in their view so they reject it
jesus = the father = the holy spirit
if you can pray to one you can pray to all,
read clement II his sermen is shocking at how fluid he uses the trinity.
he says at one point "they [the jews] put God to death" "the sun and moon ran in fear at god's death"
I was rocked by that, I'd only ever heard jesus was point to death, jesus died and rose etc
So much for Sola Scriptura!
Thanks!
Thanks for this clip. I have learned quite a bit about apologetics from Mr. Horn.
Saying that you can only pray to the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus is a hot take.
That sniffs of a basic heresy to me for the sake of maintaining a fundamentalist sola scriptura view.
The heresy to me sounds like the other persons of the trinity are only accessible through Jesus serving the role of a middleman rather than each person of the trinity being an object of worship that points to each other person.
Even in this limited view, how does he reconcile people praying to the Father before knowing Jesus?
1 Timothy 2:5-6
@ are you interpreting this as Jesus not being God? Because that’s wildly inconsistent with who Jesus is
@@MarkelMathurin You didn't answer the question he posed, though. Chucking out scripture like it's a golem that does the job for you without any further explanation doesn't bring the conversation forward.
Protestant will say, “Why pray to saints when you can pray directly to God?” and then pray for God the Son to intercede with God the Holy Spirit for them. Why not pray directly to the Holy Spirit?
@@MarkelMathurinthat verse isn't about prayer. You and other protestants should realize that.
16:00 1 Thessalonians 2:13 And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe.
18:11 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”
-Saint Jerome
Thank you and God bless you and your family, Trent Horn. Praying for you and everyone here in my daily Rosary. Merry Christmas!
Thank you, Trent. I followed you for a few years and praise God you’ve gotten even better as a Catholic apologist. Keep up the good work God bless you.
The year is 2024 going 2025. The age of almost infinite, free, and on hand information and yet protestantism and Islam is still alive. Incredible.
It’s a grace from God.
There has been an incredible wave of Christian unification since just the latter 20th century. I think technology is having a huge effect on people and the American Catholic Church is leading the way in modern evangelization.
Protestantism exists, sure, but if any religion is on its last legs it’s them. When people apostasize, it’s usually from a so-called “fundamentalism” Christianity to a fundamentalist atheism as its shown to be the weakest under scrutiny, at the risk of sounding triumphant (indeed, I think it’s a net bad thing they apostasize and so it is little victory)
Protestantism only emerged by abusing newly developed methods of promulgating information, i.e., the printing press in the 16th century. The internet only makes it easier.
And Catholics still believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life. LOL
Gnosticism still exists.😒 D@mn the devil.
Catholicism always wins❤.
Because the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth
The bible does say that the righteous will be meek
@@MarkelMathurin thats how we know protestants aint rightous nor Christians.
@@MarkelMathurin thats how we know protestants aint rightous nor Christians.
@@MarkelMathurin thats why protestants aint that nor Christians.
The protestant needs to understand the definition of prayer
That is a significant problem Protestants have or seem to have. The problem is that because they often see prayer as worship and worship as prayer, they mix the words together and use them for the same purpose, which needs to be corrected. The early Christians did not see worship and prayer that way.
The problem with protestants is that they have to reject anything catholic on the get go. If it sounds catholic it's pagan to them.
Why not just pray to God?
@@ZWAYTOLIFEProtestants merely venerate God
@ZWAYTOLIFE do you read the bible? Or maybe u havent watched this particular video
Thank you, Trent
Saw the whole thing. Leonardo had nothing to say you can feel his spirit he's super anti-Catholic. He keep calling the catholic church an empire and and institution He's super Weird. Trent was on point and as usual. Leonardo didn't even pull up one Bible verse. He's not on Trents level. Trents batting 1000. Leonardo doesn't even deserve to be at the plate. Trent is wasting his time talking to Tito Jackson. Now if he's talking to Michael I could understand, but he's dealing with Tito. I won't even give him tito he's dealing with Rebbie Jackson.
The Catholic Church as it existed after Constantine has been most definitely an empire,.
Only someone with no knowledge of history at all would deny it.
Very good, trent! Thank you!
2 Thess 2:15 clearly tells Christians to hold to traditions taught by the Apostles outside of Scripture. You wouldn't even have the Bible without teachings and tradition outside of Scripture. The 1st Bible didn't fall down from heaven.
That's hilarious, you wouldn't have the Bible without Judaism because the entire book is about Jews. LOL
@@ji8044Not even the Jews agreed what was Scripture until after the Fall of the Second Temple.
@@Cklert That is different from the hundreds of denominations of Christianity how?
That refers to what was taught to the Christian’s in the church of Thessalonians. Not a blanket statement for all tradition outside of this.
@@lovegod8582 but this is exactly what we're talking about! There are things which were taught by the apostles that are NOT in the Bible!
Many thanks Trent.
The hardest thing for protestants to defend is sola scriptura. It is neither explicit nor implicit. Many protestants derive competing doctrines from so-called implicit teachings. Jesus gave us a church, the church gave us sacred scriptures. It's not the other way around. It's unfortunate that many poorly catechized catholics fall into the false notion of the ultimate supremacy of the bible and the "legitimacy" of private interpretation. Although they avoid the term interpretation and instead call it the plain reading of the text. There are very few protestants who willingly acknowledge and remain intellectually consistent on this subject. As with this Roman protestant, he tends to focus on the example rather than the overarching theme of the query.
Sola Scriptura is very easy to defend because its true:
Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399I think he’s trying to point out that sola scriptura is based on a false premise that God’s revelation was exclusively transmitted by scripture. You only need to study the question of “where does the Bible come from?” To conclude that placing the Bible as the sole infallible authority is a framework that’s difficult to defend.
For example, one thing the Protestants concluded after the reformation was to remove parts of, indeed whole books of, the Bible that were considered scripture by all Christians to that point.
Or that in Jesus’ time, the people of Israel had competing schools on what scripture included and didn’t include.
@@undolf4097 What is a greater authority than the Bible and how do you know?
Jesus knew what all Scripture is. See
Luke 24:27
@ the greater authority is God who transmitted revelation to not only establishing and inspiring scripture but through the apostles he bequeathed authority to and sent on mission. It is the Church that received inspiration to write scripture and received revelation on what scripture is to be held as exclusive canon.
Scripture is food for a Christian. Can you physically live without food? Neither can a saved person live without scripture. That’s a pretty clear teaching that sola Scriptura is the life of the church and nothing else is said to supply such a thing.
This was a brutal take down, way to go trent!!!
Trent coherent as always
Sola scriptura is not in the scriptura. Game, set, match. Well done.
Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399what authority gave the world the Scriptures?
@@marley8560 God.
@@Justas399 Just curious, how do you square your statement "There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures" with John 21:25. If there are, according to John's Gospel, "many other things which Jesus (God the Son) did;.." that were not written down, how could Scripture have greater authority than God himself, either Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit? If God the Son (or even the Father or the holy Spirit) did and said things that aren't found in Scripture, who holds the greater authority, the Triune God or Scripture?
Scripture is food for a Christian. Can you physically live without food? Neither can a saved person live without scripture. That’s a pretty clear teaching that sola Scriptura is the life of the church and nothing else is said to supply such a thing.
Christ is King.
Amen. And Mary is Queen.
Trent won this hands down. This other guy was saying a whole lot of nothing and just rattling off verses out of context.
Standard Protestant then.
While I don’t share the same views as the Dr, I did enjoy watching inception
😂
There is nothing sadder to me than a Protestant Italian. I visited the village where my grandparents were born in Campania which had suffered a devastating earthquake in the 1980's and apparently that incident so shook their faith in God that many became Jehovah's Witnesses. In Italy, you're surrounded by Catholic iconography everywhere. To deny all that history is just tragic to me.
Yes, Arabs should also remain muslim as they have so much culturally backing in the religion
Nothing sadder than coerced Christianity. Give people a choice and some will become Protestant. Just like 30% of Latin America…
It's kind of similar to the situation in Russia. Although the majority of Russians are baptized Orthodox, actual Sunday church attendance in the ROC is pitiful and the baptists gained a very strong foothold in Russia because their underground churches did well under the communist regime. So if you actually meet a Russian who is a practicing Christian today, not just baptised as a baby, they're more likely to be baptist than they are Orthodox (or Catholic). We have a huge Russian population in the state where I live and they're nearly all baptist or some version of non demoninational protestant. We have essentially no ethnic Russians who practice apostolic Christianity.
I’d love for you to make a video on Mother Theresa given how much her name has been dragged through the mud, like in the Buzzfeed video or on what Hitchens wrote
Great job Trent you made very clear points and the Protestant didn’t really have any answers. God bless
All I know is when about 8 or 9 I bought a statue of 'Our lady of Monserrat' at a jumble sale, not that I knew that i knew who at the time and I'm not saying this is the only reason for my conversion but it played it's part.
🙏
When I heard a Muslim call to prayer, I embraced islam
Well done Trent.
If you accept the 27 books of the New Testament, then you’ve already acknowledged/accepted sacred tradition and authority of the Catholic Church in canonizing/interpreting scripture.
That's not actually true of course, for instance the Catholic stance on the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in any of those books. There is literally nothing to interpret.
The Catholic church was not a thing when those books were recognized as scripture...it was just the church. The Roman Catholics decided to become their own thing a few centuries later
@@Ben-hn4nw Correct, almost no Roman Catholics understand that it is a breakaway religion from that established at Nicea.
@@ji8044 It’s actually very true. You’re limiting yourself to what you personally interpret to only be explicitly stated in scripture, yet the Catholic Church teaches sacred tradition alongside sacred scripture. If you only believe biblical scripture to be historical fact, then you are selling yourself short of the fullness of the Christian faith. Even Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
@@ji8044:
The Catholic (NOT Roman Catholic) Church was established in Jerusalem in the year 33AD.
The Council at Nicea was a meeting of Catholic bishops. No religion was established there.
There is no church called the 'Roman Catholic Church'.
Historical fact!
That was a solid discussion
Quite poor responses from the Protestant, Trent far better.
Congrats Trent!!!! Good job!
Why Catholic Vs Protestant is bigger deal than Muslim Vs non-Muslim w/ the ongoing war?
@nicbentulan Because they both think they are smart and know everything about heaven AND hell/want to be greater than God, who created them. And don't listen to God, still commanding them: 'You shall not eat from this one tree!'. So they are trapped in the devil's question: 'Did God REALLY say?' So they HAVE to discuss for eternity!
An estimated one to two million people died in the Wars of the Reformation.
Catholic versus Protestant has been deadlier than any pandemic in history.
The moderator’s claim that Protestants have a “high view of scripture” contradicts the very meaning of “sola”. Catholics have a high view of scripture, but they understand the Jesus left us a Church not a bible. What Protestants know of today as “scripture” is a gift from the Church.
Jesus most definitely did not leave a church, as he was Jewish. LOL
Arius denied the title of God bearer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The New Testament says pray for one another. The idea that we cannot ask those in heaven to pray for us denies the Communion of the Saints. Sola Scriptura is a misleading phrase because Protestants actually believe in each individual interpretation of Holy Scripture. The interpretation srarts first and the Scriptures are used selectively to back up protest. To further do this books are remove that contradict the Protestant ideas. The other issue us the Early Church writers who were taught by the apostles do not agree with the protest. Yes what the apostles did was teach in many ways not just the Scriptures which the Church blessed preserved and used as part of the tradition.
Did Dr. Leo ever reply your point on non-biblical origin of sola scriptura? I was really interested in hearing what could be a possible reply.
This protestant man wasted our time. Just spoke from his own resources, did not support it or say why his thought is correct.
Jesus showed us how to pray. "Our Father, who art in Heaven" I pray directly to the Father
So you don’t ask others to pray for you?
@patrickpelletier9298 asking someone to keep me in their prayers is different than praying to the dead to pray to God on my behalf.
@ oh, those in heaven are dead? Someone should tell Jesus, because he says they aren’t dead.
@@patrickpelletier9298 where does it say those in heaven can hear you? Again if your gonna pray, pray directly to God, why would you pray to anyone else. And if you're gonna ask anyone to intercede for you, why wouldn't you ask Christ?
@ where does it say they can’t? The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
Revelation shows the elders in heaven bringing the prayers of the holy ones on earth to God.
Not only is Sola Scriptura found nowhere in the Bible (either explicitly or implicitly), but it is *explicitly* stated that not all of Jesus's teachings are included within the words of the Bible, or at least the Gospels (John 21:25)
That would open the door to ANY interpretation of the NT.
@@ji8044 Not if the authoritative Tradition of His Apostles and their successors is followed.
@@justpodzol9681 Tradition and authoritative are opposite assertions.
@@ji8044 I would respond to that but I can't because it's simply untrue.
@@justpodzol9681 Fair enough, you are correct that we can't have a discussion because you have your own set of facts.
By way of example we celebrate Christmas based on tradition alone because there is no authoritative reason to believe that Jesus was born on December 25th or that early Christians EVER celebrated his birth.
@1:30 This is a subtle but important facet of the doctrine. The New Testament refers to us as children or sons of God nearly two dozen times, while creature often refers to creations that are not Gods literal children. It's similar to using clump of cells instead of baby. It's not wrong, but it's misleading and supports a more blue haired doctrinal narrative.
Yep, we're more than just creation in God's view.
@IJN-33 we were...before the creeds.
I always pray that I become a successful Catholic Social Media Influencer to spread the teachings and Revelations of the Catholic Church and the entire Christendom. I hope and pray the Devotion to the Eucharist and the Holy Souls in Purgatory helps me. In your charity, lets all pray 7 Hail Mary for the propagation of all Catholic Teachings and for the success of all Catholic Social Media Influencer that all may be guided by the Holy Trinity, Holy Family, all Great Saints, and Angels.
Do Protestants ever research the apparitions of Our Lady?
They'll just write it off as the devil working signs and wonders.
🙏🏽🔥☦️
Christ gave a prayer that was directed to the Father and told us to pray it/in that manner. The idea that we can only pray to Christ is contradictory to praying “Our Father”
Day one asking The Consel of Trent to make a rebutte of OrtodoxKyle
11:59 It’s answered in 2 Tim 3:17 “so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”.
This video is not found in scripture, and I will refuse to comment on it!!
;p loll
Love seeing Protestant intellectuals trip up on Sola Scriptura not proving itself. Once one's eyes and heart are opened to the true Church, there's no going back!
Yeah idk why they trip up, any basic Christian should be able to understand it and defend it
Protestants are indeed Christian, I love my protestant friends deeply. Protestant teachings is like reading a novel with a few chapters missing. Or watching your favorite movie on tv but a few scenes cut out.
Catholic teaching is like installing chapters from a fiction book into non fiction
@@MarkelMathurin I'm not a Catholic or protestant, but I'm a little confused by this take. Wasn't it Luther that removed the deuterocanon? I hear protestants talk a lot about not adding or taking away from the Bible, but it seems that redraws the boundaries of what the Bible is. Am I missing something?
yup the question of the Cannon is very very comlicated. Many different strains of 0year jews held very different cannons. The dead sea jews held book of enoch as cannon for example. I think the sumarians only held the 5 books of moses
@@IJN-33 Yes. The Deuterocanon was always disputed. Among the Jews, in the early church, most notably by Jerome, and onwards. At Trent, the vote for retaining it was quite close (the yes vote was not even a majority, only a plurality).
Luther sided with Jerome and the critics. Contrary to internet Catholic opinion, he didn't remove it, and in fact it was printed in all Lutheran Bibles, albeit in a section between the Old and the New Testaments.
@@SeanusAurelius Thanks for the clarification. I'm intrigued by this history.
Thank you.
No offense to the “Protestant” but the phrase “Protestant” is broad and vague enough to mean nothing. What identifies his “Protestant” any more than he is the self professed leader of some church assembly he built in some vacant building in Rome?
Catholic only means universal. It doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church.
@@ji8044:
Well, 'catholic' can mean universal, but it originally means 'concerning the whole, complete'.
For almost two thousand years, since at least 107AD, it has also been the name used by the original followers of Our Lord, and the Church that He established.
When I tell someone that I'm Catholic they know that I'm referring to my religion, they don't expect to see me flying all around the globe!
P.S.
There is no church called the 'Roman Catholic Church'.
The name is CATHOLIC.
@@alhilford2345 No that's wrong, sorry. I don't know why you keep coming up with 107, but it has no basis in history.
It always comes back to the same basic proposition: "If I don't find it in the Bible then it should not be believed."
Regarding 'praying to the saints' the difficulty is probably a matter of language. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prayer is “the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God”. So, going by that definition, we cannot pray to the Saints. It would be better to use another term. We talk to the saints in Heaven. We make requests to the saints in Heaven. These are all ultimately directed towards God. And if we should only pray to God then we should not ask other people on this earth to pray on our behalf. If you accept that it is permissible to ask another person on earth to pray for you then you should have no difficulty asking the saints in Heaven to pray for you.
Where in the bible does the catechism get that definition of prayer
Why I became Eastern Catholic Orthodox is because I realized modern Christianity is diluted insufficient theologically and economically.
What is Eastern Catholic Orthodox ?
@@mythologicalmyth would earlier disciples say the same thing about what was then modern Eastern Catholic Orthodox?
2:06 I have read the Ignatius Catholic study Bible and have found this quote by St Jerome: God in showing his perfect salvation uses the same things that caused sin to enter the world: a tree, a fruit and a Virgin.
I'm Catholic, but I don't pray to Mary, any saint or angel. I pray only to God.
Nobody cares.
I don't think it's obligated that you pray to the m but if you find it problematic, why not leave Rome?
@@itaxevasixn8808 Blessings!
@@computationaltheist7267 Leave Rome??
Mary achieved Theosis in a remarkable and unrepeatable way. If she did not give herself totally and freely, in other words, if she did not say YES, the incarnation was not possible. This female is the most important only human person that has ever existed. She is the most holy and important, necessary after the Trinity.
The Trinity is not in the Bible.
@ Matthew 28:19: Jesus instructs the apostles to baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
@ 1 John 5:7-8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
@@jc319ad Jesus says he is inferior to the Father on multiple occasions. Paul does the same. Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation taking place as it does after Jesus was already dead.
@@jc319ad Notice Jesus himself isn't in that. Jesus always and everywhere said he was separate and inferior from God the Father. Paul agrees and says God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. You can't make it any plainer than that.
The first formal dogmatic theology of the Trinity is by Augustine in "On The Trinity" 400 years after the birth of Jesus. It comes possibly from his background as a Manichean. Their concept of the universe involved multiple forces co-existing and interacting as do most pagan religions. That is completely absent from Judaism in the OT, however later Judaism was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a degree. We see that for instance in the heavy amount of Platonism in the NT.
Sir, with all due respect, you are not really doing good to the souls of your fans here. Why do you spend your whole time, energy and ministry indoctrinating people in perpetual bondage.
As an Ex-Catholic just last two months, I was so zealous defending the falsehood and deceptions practiced in Catholic system. Indeed, they have nice teachings, but they carefully blend them with their fabrication to subvert the place of Christ.
Ex-Catholics are those people who never learned about the Catholic faith and yet always seem to think that they are infallible authorities.
Yours was a false Catholicism if it was subverting Jesus. All lead us to Christ.
@bridgefin
I believe you were no more Catholic than I was. So, I know that ball game.
Anything to say about that segment of the debate. Maybe you could answer Trent's question which was sidestepped.
@@chikeziecornelius3061
I have no idea how much of a Catholic you were.
I’ve read the Bible. And I’ll say that accumulative we can see that people who are a part of the body of Christ, and who are in heaven, clearly know what we are doing here on this side of the veil.
They are cheering for us, they are rejoicing when we repent, they are offering up prayers to God. They are IN Christ, fully in Christ. If we here on earth can gain some of Christ so that we can speak other languages, heal people, have knowledge we shouldn’t have, etc, then how much more will those who are perfected have these gifts? And we should all intercede for each other according to the Bible. Does God’s commandments stop being commandments when we enter into his presence? That doesn’t make any sense.
Those in heaven can pray for us. Because they are in heaven.
Trent with the motte and bailey:
"It’s like asking a friend to pray for you" - the Motte
“Hey quasi-incarnate transubstantiated Eternal Queen of Heaven, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Wife of the Spirit, into your Hands I commit my spirit!!!" - The Bailey
I think the motte and Bailey is inaccurate because this can be applied to one’s relationship with Jesus too, where you can have a personal, intimate and even friendship with Jesus is not only a fundamental concept of Christianity, but also being in awe akin to royalty that Jesus sits in (which follows Mary as Queen Mother like in ancient Israel, a revered member of the royal family)
The motte and bailey is where you present one position that contradicts your actual belief. It’s a tactic of hiding your beliefs which is not what happens when our relationship with the divine or saints are explained in terms of royalty or as friends as if those were contradictory concepts.
@@undolf4097 no, a motte and bailey is basically a bait and switch. You switch between something that is difficult to defend to something that is much easier to defend that most people already agree with. We all agree that there is nothing wrong with asking your friends to pray for you. This is easy to defend (the motte) But thats not what is at issue. The issue is when you treat Mary as if she were a demi-god and your "prayers" to her end up looking like prayers to God Himself. That is much more difficult to defend (the bailey). And Trent presents the Catholic view as if it were the motte when it reality its the bailey. Hence the bait and switch.
The saints are alive right now, and their prayers are powerful
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 like i explained, this are reconcilable when we make the comparison to our relationship to Jesus and there’s not a reason to have an issue with it
Historical Protestant objections to Saint intercession have everything to do with Calvinist and Lutheran teachings on sanctification (that is, the mechanism of grace and salvation) and you’ll find both historical schools do not object to such a representation of Jesus or Mary in royal terms
You can strengthen your Protestant view by not embracing a fallacious interpretation, so I’m not even saying you need to become catholic to accept these positions as historical Protestantism did not
7:57 I’ve noticed this among many Protestants: a mistrust of human reason.
10:43 Prayer to the Holy Spirit 😮. I’ve never heard this objection.
How do I donate, it’s giving Tuesday?
The audio levels of your interlocutor were terrible, I could barely hear him.
I'm sorry to say I was not impressed with De Chirrico at all.
I was hoping for a higher caliber protestant... but all he offered were the same tired talking points.
Trent is a surgeon in how he takes apart the protestant belief. How can a protestant argue that sola scriptura is not contradicting?
Thank you for this comment! It was funny! -Vanessa
Thanks Trent
Trent, at around 11minutes or so, this gentleman states that the bible must be the safeguard and upholder of truth.
I think there was a missed opportunity there to begin to unravel his belief in sola scriptura as the bible itself states that the Church, not the bible, is the safeguard and upholder of truth. 1tim 3:15.
God bless you, Trent. Keep up the Lord's work.
10:04 - "Dr. Chirico:...we are not supposed to pray to them..." where is that in the bible? we should hold Protestants strictly to sola scriptura and 66 canon bible. Where in the 66 books is this? Also, please don't confuse this with what King Saul did. Ok, Trend nailed it on the head at 11:46
''Can the Church say something contrary to the Bible?'' This is the right question and the one that proves Sola Scriptura, i.e. ONLY CHRIST, ONLY GRACE, ONLY BY THE GIFT OF FAITH. Rome teaches synergy which is opposite to the Bible as Lutheran Reformation clearly and adamantly proved. So, how a church can insist of her infallibility, when teaches the opposite of the Bible? The Word of God is in the centre, not what a church thinks for herself. In fact Rome says ''Not Sola Scriptura'', but ''ONLY ROME''. This is anti-christ mentality. Unfortunately, most of Protestantism today teaches the same with Rome. Come back to the true church, the one clearly taught in the lutheran confessions.
Απάντηση
" Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church.... Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith."
CCC 2003, 2005.
The Catholic Church has all it's official teachings online and for free. You have no excuse to not believe but to spread falsehoods about Her.
I think the biggest mistake is believing that Luther was consistent in his views, and didn't constantly flip flop, to the point of altering the very Bible itself to suit his views.
@@Cklert I know perfectly the Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church. I know of what I speak about. But, this is not your case. I think you know nothing about lutheran theology. Rome is synergistic. It starts with grace and continues with the response of man. Everything is based on man's free will and deeds. Study more.
When I began listening to Muslims debate, I noticed that they made very similar points as Protestant Christians. They treat the Quran very similar to how modern Christians use sola scriptura. Almost all mimicked the main doctrine points, but when questioned deeper, their ideology becomes relative to their own interpretation.
I do think Christianity obviously has a stronger position in regards to history, but ultimately their faith hinges on what they feel is true based on their preferences. Although I do think the Bible can point people to Christ, I do not think the Bible can tell a person why the Bible alone should be trusted.
I've seen many people corrupt scripture in order to justify evil. With that being said, what is the best way to prevent Bible corruption? Is it the interpretation that doesnt offend people? Is it the interpretation that tolerates sin? Is it the interpretation that opens it all up to interpretation.
If we are being honest, it only makes sense if we trust God and his Church to arrange the canon as it should and to teach and pass down traditions that keep order in the Church. If people cant trust the Church then how can they trust scriptures. I seriously dont know how any honest person can justify this.
Which Christian church belongs to God?
He never said anybody but the 12 tribes of Israel were his own.
@ji8044 There is only one church.
Do you know why the saints decided that information regarding the 12 tribes was relevant when deciding what is canon?
@@SINQUEFIELD83 I know why Jesus chose 12 disciples. Do you? Here's a hint, it's about Judaism, not Christianity.
@ji8044 You don't know that. You heard words and decided to trust specific people for a specific reason
@@SINQUEFIELD83 Jesus said it himself in Matthew. I knew that you have never read the bible. Most Catholics have not.
“Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?” 28Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" Matthew 19:26-27
As a Catholic l believe that God speaks to us with one voice, but through two channels. Through the written word of God AND through His Church which He established upon Peter and the apostles. Therefore, God cannot contradict Himself by saying one thing in the Bible and saying something contradictory through His Church. The fulness of revelation requires both. Our protestant brothers and sisters are missing out big time. Eg, the Eucharist, Sacraments, Mary and the saints, the Mass and so much more. Vivo Christo Rey.
So, lemme get this straight. He affirms that they're alive, but then says that if we pray to them we're praying to the dead. ??
They're dead
@@MarkelMathurinTruly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. - John 6:47-50
I respect your giftedness and I learn from you a lot.
How do you respond to the challenge that in order to avoid Sola Scriptura Catholics might end up with "the pope alone" principle (the logical conclusion). If the pope is not bound by sufficiently basing doctrines in the Scriptures (and/or by necessary inference), then whatever the pope decides, it will be OK (even if thinly based on tradition, after all tradition is a big and mixed bag, any obscure practice may be used as prooftext) ? If some or many object they easily can get excommunicated (Orthodox bishops patriarchs as a case study). The problem is not necessarily in different systems but in the human sinfulness and absolute power.
The second challenge: if the Church is the pillar and buttress of the truth , then the whole worldwide Church (ecumenical council near unanimous decisions) has the infallibility, not one person/pope.
1. Papal Authority: The pope is not “free to do whatever he wants.” His authority is exercised in communion with the Church’s Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. Papal infallibility is narrowly defined and applies only in specific circumstances regarding faith and morals.
2. Infallibility of the Church vs. the Pope: While the Church as a whole is the pillar and foundation of truth, the pope holds a unique role in safeguarding the faith and confirming the teachings of the Church, including those of ecumenical councils. The Church’s authority is exercised collectively, but the pope is the ultimate guarantor of the Church's doctrinal fidelity.
3. Theological Safeguards: Catholicism includes mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power, such as collegiality, synods, and a well-defined structure of accountability. The pope is not acting alone, and any potential for human sinfulness is mitigated by the broader context of Church governance.
@Roman_Leo3
1. how this authority played out in history? why RC apologists have hard time finding strong proofs for some of the RC dogmas that were supposedly done "in communion with the Church's Tradition" (for example, who wrote Septum Presidium? so any obscure right or wrong fragment that describes a practice in the tradition works even if the practice is not backed by the majority of the major early Church Fathers)? How is that cosidered communion with the Church's Tradition? Its sounds nice on paper until some investigation is done about the claims.
"in communion with the magisterium", unless half of the magisterium got excommunicated along ethnic national lines so that their voice is not represented.
2. If 1 person is the "ultimate guarantor" of the faith and "confirms the teachings of the ecumenical councils", then you proved my point, "the Pope alone" principle is replacing "the Church alone" as the pillar of faith. If the pope errs who corrects the Pope? no RC friend was able to respond to this question. I see the Conciliar principle more consistent (where the majority of the RC magisterium, to start with, can correct the pope).
3. The mechanisms of theological safeguards are not working it seems. jumping from 7 to 21 "ecumenical" councils even when half of the Church was not invited. So much for "ecumenism" and so much for the "Church is the pillar of the Truth". Probably better to say "half of the Church is the pillar of the Truth".
1. how this authority played out in history? why RC apologists have hard time finding strong proofs for some of the RC dogmas that were supposedly done "in communion with the Church's Tradition" (for example, who wrote Septum Presidium? so any obscure right or wrong fragment that describes a practice in the tradition works even if the practice is not backed by the majority of the major early Church Fathers)? How is that considered communion with the Church's Tradition? Its sounds nice on paper until some investigation is done about the claims.
"in communion with the magisterium", unless half of the magisterium got excommunicated along ethnic national lines so that their voice is not represented.
2. If 1 person is the "ultimate guarantor" of the faith and "confirms the teachings of the ecumenical councils", then you proved my 1, "the Pope alone" principle is replacing "the Church alone" as the pillar of faith. If the pope errs who corrects the Pope? no RC friend was able to respond to this question. I see the Conciliar principle more consistent (where the majority of the RC magisterium to start with, can correct the pope).
3. The mechanisms of theological safeguards are not working it seems. jumping from 7 to 21 "ecumenical" councils even when half of the Church is not invited. So much for ecumenism and so much for the "Church is the pillar of the Truth". Probably better to say "half of the Church is the pillar of the Truth".
Total Catholic Victory.
14:24
2 Timothy 3:16-17? genuine question i am not against the catholic church or anything but?
The important piont is whether praying to mary is part of the apostolic deposit or not
If the bible does not teach the practice and if the early church fathers who either knew the apostles or knew those who knew the apostles did not teach it ...then it can be safe to say it is not part of the apostolic deposit of faith whether wriiten or oral
Clicked primarily to see what a heck a ”Roman” Protestant is.
6:14 This is absurd. The Bible itself is founded on the Church. The New Testament from which he certainly must chiefly draw to make his points are the product of the Church, by the Holy Spirit. The books did not fall out of the middle of the air. He is making a false distinction between the decisions of the Church and the text of the Bible (aka "New Testament" chiefly).
Why would bro be protestant living in the heart of Christendom 😭
Why be Christian in arabia
As an atheist, how do you respond to the cosmological and fine tuning arguments for God’s existence?
I think an atheist might say that the fine tuning argument does not prove the existence of God because the fact that something has a low probability of happening naturally, ie the fine tuning of the universe, that doesn’t mean that it simply happened naturally by beating the odds. The cosmological argument is very convincing imo (keep in mind that I am Catholic and not atheist) but I have heard atheists say that perhaps the universe is eternal. Then you have to go to the trouble of showing that an infinite past is unreasonable.
Dr Chirico literally begged the question that sola scriptura is true in his entire argument. His arguments only worked if one assumes his premises were correct.
Trent caught that well in his response and I honestly don’t think Dr Chirico had any kind of coherent response to that challenge.
When he says “grounded biblically”; oneness Pentecostals would say the orthodox understanding of the Trinity is unbiblical and that biblical trinitarianism is one of Modalism.
And that’s an argument that is impossible to settle using the Bible alone.
Well it's an issue of authority. It's impossible not only to settle the Trinity argument but to settle any argument without a living authority. The Bible can't speak for itself.
On behalf of almost every Trinitarian Protestant, and tbh most Catholics, no way.
The Bible absolutely is Trinitarian from beginning to end, starting from the first use of Elohim (a plural name), through to the Alpha and Omega in Revelation.
@@SeanusAurelius you can believe that personally but if someone in your church doesn’t agree then what?
Can someone point to a video that talks about the other sources of faith outside of the Bible? I’m curious after watching this.
Happy December 2nd day of Advent, Trent! Been praying to our Lord Jesus for the world, through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima every day in my Rosary. I follow the first commandment so I only worship one God! I believe Jesus Christ is the mediator, and I believe our Blessed Mother Mary can lead us to Him. She prays for us on our way to Him. When I refer to Mary as my mother, please know I am not taking away respect due to my one and only God, Lord Jesus Christ. I believe loving people Jesus loves helps us love Him more, so the more I love Mary, the more I love God, and Jesus gave Mary to us as our mother on the Cross.
John 19: 26-27 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
Mother Mary, the first Christian with her choice to say "yes" to my one and only God's will, I believe she is the number 1 model for sainthood for both men and women. She did God's will perfectly in every respect from the moment of her conception, listening to every single one of His commands. Her choice to say "yes"
Luke 1:38 Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.
to God's will ushered in salvation for the world, and she did so knowing the sacrifices and sufferings that would result from her decision, but, humbly, accepted the privilege of containing the God of the Universe her womb, and then becoming Jesus' most intimate friend, companion, and greatest consolation while on Earth. She was the devil's ultimate humiliation! I believe God is the King of the universe, having all power of the universe, but God chose Our Lady, a humble lowly woman the privilege of crushing the head of the devil.
Mary is not God, but she is a saint, and being that she is with Jesus in Heaven, I ask for her intercession to our Lord (and for sake of brevity, I'll say I "pray to Mary"), similar to how I'd ask people to pray for me (please do. I'm a broken sinner in need of many prayers), but I trust she is a saint in Heaven so I believe it is helpful to ask for her help, especially being so close to her Son. There is only one God. He is the source of all good. He is Goodness. He is Love!
"To love is to will the good of another."
-St. Thomas Aquinas
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
1 John 4:16 We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us.
God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.
Prayed for you Trent, your family, and everyone here at Mass yesterday and in my daily Rosary. Hope you and yours have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed week!
“The saints are alive but you can’t pray to the dead, even the alive ones in heaven.”